We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

A constructor that argued the “mistake of fact” due diligence defence was instead found to have made a “mistake of law” and was convicted of a charge under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

A construction employee was injured when a large slab of ice fell from the face wall of a water intake tunnel being constructed. A few minutes before, workmen suspended by a crane in a basket had been chipping away ice from that area. The constructor was charged with three offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The second charge, which the Ministry of Labour inspector admitted alleged “technical” safety violations that played no role in the accident, alleged that the constructor failed to ensure that a load rating chart, prepared by a professional engineer, was affixed in a conspicuous place on the crane.

The crane operator admitted that he was “still waiting” to receive the load rating chart from the professional engineer. As such, the appeal court found that the constructor guilty on the second charge.

The constructor argued the “mistake of fact” branch of the due diligence defence. It argued that there was a rating chart at the base of a removable plywood platform (that is, at the workers’ feet) that was a suitable “variation” on the legal requirement. It also purported to rely on a “comfort” letter from an engineering firm. The appeal court held, however, that any mistakes the constructor made were “mistakes of law not fact”: the variations were not permissible because the employer had not given written notice to the joint health and safety committee, and the engineering firm’s letter did not refer to the regulation and could not, in any event, displace the requirements of the regulation. A mistake of law is not a defence. As such, the constructor was convicted on the rating chart charge. Two other charges against the constructor were dismissed.

Compare jurisdictions: Employment & Labor: International

"Lexology is a very relevant and interesting resource for South African in-house lawyers. The newsfeeds are a good measure of a firm's expertise and offer an interesting insight into recent legal developments. I would highly recommend Lexology to colleagues."